Living outside of the Chicago area, I hear it all the time. "We're going to Chicago, and we're going to go see Wrigley Field." Note that it's not "going to see the Cubs," it's "going to see Wrigley Field." Tourists would not say "we're going to go see the new replica of Wrigley Field that they built out by the airport."

Exactly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noneck

Another draw will be from tourists going to the new designer mall. What I have heard is that it will be something really special. Mom and the girls come in to go to the mall while dad and the boys go to a ball game. Many different possibilities of getting out of towners to the ballpark.

A few thousand people might do that. But not a million. An outlet mall is not a real draw to a ballpark.

A few years back I made a Cubs fan angry, no make that livid with me when I suggested something similar to what is being discussed in this thread. I made the sacreligious argument that despite all the hype Wrigley Field had become an albatross that was contributing heavily to a century of futility. I still believe that. If I were the Ricketts I would pursue this option aggressively. A short term PR disaster probably. A long term benefit quite possibly. As a rule I don't like to stereotype people, there is so much of that these days. Nonetheless I suppose I will break my own rule and say I have noticed since the late 50's a strong pollyanna streak that runs in Cub fandom. Give them a new park that pays homage to the old while having some badly needed accoutrements of the modern era and they will still come. In time so will the tourists. If Theo, Jed and Co can pull it off on the field then look out. An unpopular stance on my part no doubt, but I'm sticking to it. As a Sox fan I hope they keep stumbling along like they have been.

A few thousand people might do that. But not a million. An outlet mall is not a real draw to a ballpark.

Everything combined is what I am talking about, attendance wise combined with revenue from sources they they dont have now and less expenses, may make this a descent deal. I also realize that this is just a shakedown by the cubs but if they are backed up against the wall, it is a feasible option.

Everything combined is what I am talking about, attendance wise combined with revenue from sources they they dont have now and less expenses, may make this a descent deal. I also realize that this is just a shakedown by the cubs but if they are backed up against the wall, it is a feasible option.

I still don't see how it is any way feasible. The site sits on just 25 acres, more than a mile away from the Blue Line stop and across the tollway from the convention center and shopping, and would be difficult to access via car while also likely not having enough room for parking. This is not viable in any way, it's a bluff that only Kaplan, a mouthpiece of the team, buys into. Whether anyone else in the media cares to repeat such team propaganda remains to be seen.

I still don't see how it is any way feasible. The site sits on just 25 acres, more than a mile away from the Blue Line stop and across the tollway from the convention center and shopping, and would be difficult to access via car while also likely not having enough room for parking. This is not viable in any way, it's a bluff that only Kaplan, a mouthpiece of the team, buys into. Whether anyone else in the media cares to repeat such team propaganda remains to be seen.

I dont know about land available but public transportation is not as convenient as it is now but not ridiculous. Many are thinking that only an urban ballpark can survive here, suburban parks survive elsewhere and I see no reason why they couldn't here.

I dont know about land available but public transportation is not as convenient as it is now but not ridiculous. Many are thinking that only an urban ballpark can survive here, suburban parks survive elsewhere and I see no reason why they couldn't here.

Public transportation would be difficult at that site, as the Blue Line is over a mile away and the roads in between are far from pedestrian-friendly, and while the Metra stop is closer, Metra is a commuter rail line not suited to heavier use that a ballpark would entail.

And while suburban parks can survive, you need a lot of land for parking lots. I believe someone else in the thread mentioned that Miller Park sits on a couple hundred acres. If the vast majority of your fans are driving from other suburbs, those cars have to go somewhere. And there's a good reason why nearly every ballpark built in the last 25 years has been in a city center or close to it, away from the former suburban locations of parks built in the 60s, 70s, and 80s.

Many are thinking that only an urban ballpark can survive here, suburban parks survive elsewhere and I see no reason why they couldn't here.

"Survive" is not the question; the question is whether they would ever achieve the same kind of almost cult status that the current ballpark enjoys. They get huge crowds no matter how bad the team is because Wrigley is seen as some sort of baseball shrine, and just being there is an "experience." I don't see that being re-created artificially.

__________________

"Nellie Fox, that little son of a gun, was always on base and was a great hit-and-run man. He sprayed hits all over."
Yogi Berra in the New York Sunday News (July 12, 1970)

I still don't see how it is any way feasible. The site sits on just 25 acres, more than a mile away from the Blue Line stop and across the tollway from the convention center and shopping, and would be difficult to access via car while also likely not having enough room for parking. This is not viable in any way, it's a bluff that only Kaplan, a mouthpiece of the team, buys into. Whether anyone else in the media cares to repeat such team propaganda remains to be seen.

It would not be difficult to access that area by car. If a stadium was built there then there would most likely be construction done to provide easier access. But even now it's not that difficult to drive to that area. Parking is a concern, as well as the airport because there would be planes flying overhead all the time.

I don't think it's really that bad of a location. The blue line is right there so there could easily be shuttles set up to take people to and from the park. The casino is just down River Rd, the new outlet mall is opening soon, that whole area could become Wrigley North. It's not some barren wasteland that some of you city folk are making it out to be.

The only thing we all seem to agree on is that the Cubs might lose some attendance due to no longer having Wrigley Field to promote. Sure, they may lose some tourists but we all know a new stadium is always going to attract people. If they were to actually become competitive around the same time a new stadium is ready to open that impact will be felt for years. But the Ricketts need to decide what direction they want to go in with the club. Is Wrigley Field more important than the product on the field? Is Wrigley Field worth maintaining over the next 10, 20, 30 years? The Cubs are a brand name and losing Wrigley would definitely be a PR hit, but it's also something I think they can overcome.

I don't think it's really that bad of a location. The blue line is right there so there could easily be shuttles set up to take people to and from the park. The casino is just down River Rd, the new outlet mall is opening soon, that whole area could become Wrigley North. It's not some barren wasteland that some of you city folk are making it out to be.

I'm going to guess you have never taken the Blue Line from downtown to Rosemont or vice versa. It is brutal.

It would not be difficult to access that area by car. If a stadium was built there then there would most likely be construction done to provide easier access. But even now it's not that difficult to drive to that area. Parking is a concern, as well as the airport because there would be planes flying overhead all the time.

I don't think it's really that bad of a location. The blue line is right there so there could easily be shuttles set up to take people to and from the park. The casino is just down River Rd, the new outlet mall is opening soon, that whole area could become Wrigley North. It's not some barren wasteland that some of you city folk are making it out to be.

The only thing we all seem to agree on is that the Cubs might lose some attendance due to no longer having Wrigley Field to promote. Sure, they may lose some tourists but we all know a new stadium is always going to attract people. If they were to actually become competitive around the same time a new stadium is ready to open that impact will be felt for years. But the Ricketts need to decide what direction they want to go in with the club. Is Wrigley Field more important than the product on the field? Is Wrigley Field worth maintaining over the next 10, 20, 30 years? The Cubs are a brand name and losing Wrigley would definitely be a PR hit, but it's also something I think they can overcome.

By "might lose attendance", my guess is that it would cost them over a million tourists/visitors a year. That's just not worth it.

And, again, the Blue Line is not right there, it's over a mile away and River Road is not pedestrian-friendly whatsoever. And no one wants to take a shuttle from a parking lot or a train station to a ballpark. I don't see how a casino 2.5 miles away is any kind of draw to a ballpark, let alone an outlet mall. Having a bunch of shopping around the area does not make it Wrigley North. It may not be difficult to drive to the area, but again, there is nowhere to park; that creates a driving nightmare, when a suburban park should have easy in and out access that urban parks don't necessarily have. And it's not even great to drive to; the only access is from an already-busy River Road or Mannheim.

For the Cubs, Wrigley is the brand. What they sell is the Wrigley experience. The Cubs brand is essentially worthless without it.

It may not be difficult to drive to the area, but again, there is nowhere to park; that creates a driving nightmare, when a suburban park should have easy in and out access that urban parks don't necessarily have.

Yeah, I don't know if anyone has ever seen a movie at the Muvico Theatres in Rosemont, but the infrastructure of the town is overwhelmed by a couple hundred cars trying to get to the theatre at one time, I can't even imagine thousands of people descending there (or leaving) at once.

"Survive" is not the question; the question is whether they would ever achieve the same kind of almost cult status that the current ballpark enjoys. They get huge crowds no matter how bad the team is because Wrigley is seen as some sort of baseball shrine, and just being there is an "experience." I don't see that being re-created artificially.

It cant and wont be duplicated but there are other means to draw. Milwaukee has been doing it.

And it didn't replace a "shrine." Tourists didn't go to Milwaukee just to see County Stadium.

And nobody references the Brewers as one of the league's signature teams. The Cubs have somehow weaseled their way in with the Dodgers, Cardinals, Red Sox, etc. as a brand name staple in baseball lexicon thanks to the Wrigley field aura. If they move out to Rosemont, they will likely slowly just fade into the background with the rest of the league.